June 17, 2009

22 comments:

Its funny but it is becoming more and more clear that democrats think that joining a union is such a bad idea that they are willing put their thumbs on the scales and push down, very very hard.

Its like if you ever played playground sports, such as kickball, and one team offers to spot the other a few points. Its not out of respect for the other team, but a belief that they are so inferior that they need help just to make it a close game.

That seems to be the democratic idea on unions.

Really i have long said two things. first, there was a time when unions were necessary because conditions were inhuman. second, today, unions are more useful to you if the other guy has them. that is, they are chiefly useful as a threat, i.e. if you don't give us decent treatment, we will unionize. but once you are unionized, they will so harm your competitiveness that entire company will be harmed.

some of you remind me of the carpenter who is so mad at democrats he can't get over it...every time he wacked his finger with the hammer he would mutter "damn democrats" as if they had anything what so ever to do with the situation. same thing here.

unions have a stake in all this as there are major numbers of x-workers who gain their benefits through the union..teacher's unions, auto, you name it. that is why they are differentiated from individuals. for crying out loud, that is common sense and you should be ashamed for not realizing it.

and in case you missed it, weakened unions have not enriched workers or by being unionized, to put it another way, has not made millionaires out of the guys on the assembly line....in case my information is off, the money is sticking with management or at least the top 5% and it is doubtful that there is a union worker among them.

unions have a stake in all this as there are major numbers of x-workers who gain their benefits through the union..teacher's unions, auto, you name it. that is why they are differentiated from individuals. for crying out loud, that is common sense and you should be ashamed for not realizing it.

Unions as a concept had their place in labor history when labor laws or the enforcement of such laws were slim to none. When working conditions were abysmal and workers needed protection. Today we have layers and layers of labor law, OSHA and numerous agencies that oversee conditions.

Today. Unions are just an excuse to extort ever more more more money and obscene benefit packages from the companies that they work for. This would be fine with me because eventually the companies will have to fail due to these demands. Fail because they can't raise the cost of their goods or services enough to cover the extortion. Fail and go out of business and let the workers try to figure out just how they killed the Golden Goose.

Unfortunately, the dynamic has now changed and the rest of the working public who don't have Unions are now going to be FORCED to subsidize these leeches with our tax dollars and with ever increasing prices on MANDATORY goods and services.

The Government isn't going to give us any choices and we will all become wage slaves for a favored class that has lined the pockets of the corrupt politicians. The Unions elected Obama and the rest of us are going to pay and pay dearly.

Come now comrades, the reason for unions is so that the Party can control who is hired and who is fired, as well as controlling the means of production. The individual worker means nothing -- control by the Party means everything.

"there are major numbers of x-workers who gain their benefits through the union..teacher's unions, auto, you name it. that is why they are differentiated from individuals. for crying out loud, that is common sense and you should be ashamed for not realizing it"

HD, you seem to be suggesting that unions have a stake in this, but individuals don't. Why? The fact many workers get their benefits from unions does not in any way justify favoring them at the expense of those who do not. You've offered no reason why those who don't get benefits from unions should subsidize those who do by paying higher taxes. Come on. Let's see some evidence that you have a little of that common sense you're demanding from the rest of us.

unions have a stake in all this as there are major numbers of x-workers who gain their benefits through the union..teacher's unions, auto, you name it. that is why they are differentiated from individuals. for crying out loud, that is common sense and you should be ashamed for not realizing it.

Pish posh. We're not talking about taking away their healthcare benefits, just capping the amount that is free of tax. "For crying out loud," why should union workers or ex-workers be exempted from paying their fair share?

For as much as I sometimes admire Althouse, this is not one of those times.

This article has not so much to do with unions, but much more to do with some politician who figured out a way to not lose his current standing in his home state while putting up for vote something that will not cause him any pushback. Further, it won't cost any of us anything for a few years so IT MUST BE GOOD!

Might there be some oblique upside to organizing a union. Yeah. But the bigger issue is that this legislation is just one more example to the the young adults out there, exactly what kind of burden their current ennui will deliver.

Forgo Althouse's and Kaus's headline for the linked article. Legislation is intended to fall beneath the radar until such future time that the lack of indexing for increased healthcare costs and ever increasing medical costs fall on the backs of our youngsters today, and future adults of tomorrow. This legislation is all about a FUTURE CERTAIN TAX on YOU kiddo!

Here is my new plan:1. Organize a union in-house.2. Announce our contract demands:a company provided health plan at a price and level determined by the company.3. Sign a 25-year contract under that single term.4. Decertify the union.5. Collect tax break.